There you go,Alan.

All yours.

EM is trying to divert attention away from his own failures, and trying to fertilise dissent amongst those at BH who are not impressed by fraudulent claims made by climate scientists.

EM believes (because he has been told by Skeptical Skience yespurts) that we all think alike. Today I am thinking cold roast chicken for lunch, then change the oil on my car.

I also think the BBC's biased coverage of climate skanks is a disgrace.

Fortunately, we still live in a fairly free and democratic country, which is verboten by the Green Blob.

Raff,
Just to be clear. Is the question what the BBC should do to improve its climate change coverage in some objective sense, or what they should to do appear to have improved their climate change coveraged to those who very obviously hold a minority view about this topic?

Mike Jackson

perhaps aTTP confuses Raff and EM for a logical reason. Alternatively, perhaps there was no logic to aTTP's post at all.

An important improvement for media to improve its coverage of most issues, climate among them, would be stop being sock puppets for pre-selected points of view.
The lack of accountability for failed climate doom predictions by the so-called consensus is a notable failing of major media.
The lack of serious reporting on skeptic positions is notable.
The lack of covering serious failures in so-called consensus solutions, such as the massive failure of wind power to work as advertised, and the significant environmental negative impacts of large scale wind, is notable.
The credibility given by media to nearly any scary enviro-climate claim, no matter how ludicrous, is notable.
The lack of serious coverage of the complex nature of things like flooding and sea level rise is an area that could be corrected.
The infantile treatment of skeptics by media is an area that could be corrected.
For starters.

Some people are very proud of their achievements using other people's money in corrupting the BBC.

Hunter

Behave like an infant and you get treated like an infant.

Instead of throwing your rattle out of the pram, it would have helped your cause to have brought real evidence to the debate. Once it became obvious that your position was based on propaganda rather than science, everybody stopped listening to you.

EM, can you offer any idea as to why aTTP might have confused you with Raff? It can't have been a typo, and Raff had not posted, so is there a simple explanation, such as regular correspondence, though not necessarily on this blog?

I do not post using my real name, nor do you, or Raff or aTTP, but I do not engage in correspondence with anyone else at this blog. Just curious.

Green Sand, it is just really curious that those who link back to Skeptical Skunks, and their theories about conspiracies led by Lewandowsky and Cook, are confused by one of Lewandowsky and Cook's writing partners.

Lewandowsky and Cook can't do climate science, but are experts in the unique world that is climate science. It seems that climate science expertise is imploding into a mass of super density.

What, like high density quarks?

Too scary! What if the dog brought one in?
M

Green Sand, if suitably trained, your dog would be advised to dig a hole, and bury it in the garden. Super density quarks buried in the garden, may prevent spring bulbs from rising, and may disrupt the activities of squirrels trying to conceal their nuts.

Out of curiosity, is your Nom de Blog linked to fertile soil, popular with gardeners and fruit growers?

I would be willing to forgive the BBC if they started a new weekly cooking program from a tent in a farmers field in Lancashire, titled "Emma and The Fruitcakes".

can you offer any idea as to why aTTP might have confused you with Raff?

aTTP, their sentiments are remarkably similar in their focus.

"What could the BBC do to improve its climate change coverage?"

Filter out scare stories with the words: "could", "might" or "may" appear in the text?

Open the debate as to why we're agreeing to international agreements that everyone knows will have no substantial effect on global temperatures?

Have a climate science programme where climate scientists explain how glaciers retreating is a sign of anthropogenic global warming when the glaciers started to retreat in the 19th century.

Have a climate science programme where climate scientists explain what cause the holocene, minoan, roman, and medieval optima absent of CO2?

Have a climate science programme where climate scientists explain how these optimums (deliberate change of word) seem to occur at around 1000 year periods, and why, if they do, have we assumed the current warming isn't a recurrence of these cyclical warming periods?

Have a climate science programme where climate scientists explain why despite all forecasts to the contrary, tropical storms have dropped in numbers and intensity, droughts have failed to materialise and why the oceans, after 18000 of rising should now have stabilised?

Martin A

You are inconsistent.

On an earlier post you insisted that lack of evidence proved that there was no Climategate insider at UAE.

Now you insist that lack of evidence does not prove that there is no God.

For the record, I am strictly speaking an agnostic because in formal logic absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

In practice, in many situations absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If I find you lying on the floor with no pulse, breathing and a room temperature body; absence of life signs is evidence of absence of life. Similarly I am happy to accept that no UFOs landed on my lawn last night.

I incline towards atheism for similar reasons, ecause any God worth praying to would be evidently present.

Did you hear about the dyslexic insomniac agnostic who lay awake at night wondering if there was a Dog?